I think, that marriage is cannot be necessary or not. It is loose concept.
On the one hand, it is just a list of paper, which do legal your relationship, on the other hand this paper can completely change yours meaning of life. Consequently, what is the purpose of man on the Earth? Definetely, he should leave after himself the continuation, namely procreation. Marriage is something which do your relations stable and give the opportunity to be a family. Family is the main aspect in the marriage. Family is the love and support, which will be with you the rest of your life, but it will be, if you are really love somebody and confident that you can spend your life with this man. Imagine, it is perfect for woman who wait this moment to wear wedding dress. It is perfect, if on your wedding come all your close friends, relatives for your special and the most important day of your life. Family - is gives for you confident and learns to be responsible. Family is lights up your life with meaning, you have a reason to live for somebody, to do happy somebody, i.e children and wife. For clarification, I am for mutual marriages, I am against marriages of convenience.

Hello Mr 3095. Thank you for your debate topic. You are for mutual marriages and against marriages of convenience. However, marriages of convenience must be mutual or they would be illegal.

Perhaps you mean you are for marriages where both parties are in love, but against marriages which are entered into for other reasons.
How delighted I am to take the opposite view. When both parties to a marriage are in love and committed to a life together, there is no need for wedding vows. There is no need to dress up in ridiculous outfits and parade about smugly and get expensive presents off everyone they know. If the two people are in love and committed, then they will live happily together and their lives will be testament to their feelings and character. It would make more sense for such a couple to save money for a house and their children's education. Later, when those things are paid off, they can throw a huge party to celebrate 30 years together, if they feel like it. That would have more meaning than making a big fuss over vows which seem to have no binding power whatsoever in today's society.

However, when the two parties are not in love, then marriage is very important. Take the classic example of an elderly rich man who marries a young buxom blonde for her body, while she marries him for his money. Without marriage, her social situation is precarious. 'Is she a prostitute?' family and friends would worry. 'Should we recognize her socially? Should we tip her?" However, with marriage, the situation is clear. Also, she is protected if her husband should die.
Another example is marriages entered into for visas. Not all countries will recognize de facto relationships when it comes to visas, but even when they do, usually more stringent time periods and evidence requirements will apply than for marriages. If the person wanting the visa has paid money for the opportunity, it will reassure them to have the wedding and the photos in an album for immigration.

In that case, I'm going to take the opposing view. My own experience is that marriage makes a big difference. I lived with my partner for several years before we got married, and marriage was quite different and better than living together.This came as a big surprise to me because I had expected more of the same. The change is in the way the relationship is viewed by your families and by society. They treat you differently, more seriously, more involved. For me, this difference has been positive.But I used to work with a guy who absolutely refused to marry anyone. His first marriage had failed, he claimed, because of these very changes that come as a result of marriage. If they had not gotten married, he said, they would still be living happily together with her.So yes, marriage is necessary, I think. When you forfeit again, I'll go back to my original view.

Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro. In my opinion, marriage is definitely a good thing. However, I wouldn't say that it is completely necessary, and Con successfully and effectively showed that.

Reasons for voting decision: Pros grammar made it hard to understand his arguments. Once I got past his grammar I saw his arguments, and realized he didnt really have any. Then after pro forfeited 3 of 4 rounds and gave conduct to the con, which didnt help his lack of arguments to begin with. No sources were used, everything else to the con though